Of course there's no ads now. There were no ads on facebook when it started. Then there were just a few. Now there are a million. What makes you think Google's going to do anything different? They market it as an alternative product long enough to get everybody on it, then they'll slowly start changing the little things. Yeah, maybe their overall aesthetic or the minute details of their approach will be different, but it's still going to be the same basic cash machine.
Google+
- Thread starter jackthehack
- Start date
S
swarfrat
Guest
Facebook may be evil, but I dunno if Google is the one I want to take them down... just sayin.
B3Guy
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,262
I'm not a big Google fanboy, but I must admit their online stuff is pretty much top notch. Best search engine, best free email, second best video site (youtube.com . . . Vimeo has them beat, though.). I suspect that simply because Facebook has been the first truly big player in the social networking arena, they haven't really felt the urge to innovate or really to self-improve at all. Google no doubt is aware of this, and I believe they're smart enough to know that it'll take some pretty high quality stuff to get any significant amount of people to switch or join. Google has what it takes to truly rival Facebook, and that competition at the very least will force The Douchebag (Zuckerberg) to 
. . . actually improve his site's services. (notice the sudden addition to Facebook of group chat. coincidence? I think not.)
. . . actually improve his site's services. (notice the sudden addition to Facebook of group chat. coincidence? I think not.)
B3Guy
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,262
Is that their cloud storage for documents with built in office package? In that case, note that pretty much ALL cloud computing is bad. I don't want my personal stuff stored on some server, lord knows were, with lord knows who rooting around in it. And as far as applications go, sure I'll download a free app or use a free app in-browser, but there's NO WAY (Apple, I'm looking at you) I'm going to pay big bucks if I'm not given a hard copy. Next thing you know we won't own computer programs, we'll "subscribe". And when they update the program, we'll be forced to buy the new more powerful machine to run it on. Vicious cycle. (I'm referring to Apple's new OS Lion, which is only available via download from the app store, which only runs on OSX Snow Leopard, but I'm running Leopard, so I have to buy Snow Leopard just to get Lion. Oh and Final Cut X is download-only as well, and btw, it sucks. Switching to Adobe.)
B3Guy said:
This has already been going on for years. I discovered the video game service "Steam." Not having to own a hard copy in that particular case is great. It means in 3 years when i want to dig out some old video game I used to have, i don't have to buy it again because the discs were lost or scratched up. While I realize there's room for potential pitfalls in the service, I'm a pretty big fan of being able to get my software without the use of a disc.
B3Guy
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,262
Oh, I totally agree that in many cases (smaller, less important stuff) it can be handy. But your main freaking operating system? NO WAY! what happens if I need to reformat? Reinstall? I agree that CDs and DVDs are large, ungainly and unreasonably scratch-able storage mediums, but that's no excuse for not selling hard copies. Final Cut X is a $300 program that you download. If I'm going to pay $300 for something,I don't want a digital copy on my computer hard drive. The least they could do is put it on a disc, or even a solid state card (SD,etc.) Cloud stuff will only make sense when our internet infrastructure is much better than it is now, and even then, I'd never use it for personal files, only for "generics" like movies, music, and games.
B3Guy said:
I'm halfway with you. For the same reason as with games, I'd much rather buy a software license that allows me to get the actual program whenever and wherever I want without having to deal with a disc. I bought Adobe Lightroom 4 or 5 years ago, and after a year and a half of not using it, I was able to download it off the site and have it running again in less time than it would've taken me to dig a disc out of the attic.
personal files, on other hand? While i use online backup services (if there was a fire, no amount of external harddrives would save my life's recording work), I would never exclusively store all my personal files off location. I have nothing really sensitive backed up online, but if I did i'd be wary of whatever service I use. I also don't like the idea of people being able to dig through my files.
As for all the paranoia over storing personal information in the cloud I have to say, "Just get over it!" As a SysAdmin/Database Administrator for the past 15 years working in software/data warehousing companies all I can say is for the most part all your data is already out there, it is bought, sold and traded everyday. Name, address (every one you ever had), phone numbers, SS #, job history, salary history, what you buy, when and where you eat, medical records, driving habits, computer habits ... blah blah blah.
For a long time I tried to keep all my info offline, but it really is pointless, and what most people actually share is more damaging then their personal info like the pics of you taking bong hits at a frat party 15 years ago.
As for not getting a hard copy of software, get over that one too. Anyone that doesn't have backups of there digital files is asking for a catastrophe. At this point in time everyone should have some sort of backup, whether it be a single drive with a one touch backup or a home NAS system or just a bunch of CDs (really, they cost like $0.25 and every computer made in the last 10 years has a burner). With the amount and size of digital files everyone has these days and the fact that you'll just keep getting more I recommend a home NAS that supports RIAD 5/6 like this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822122062 with 4 2TB drives you get 4TB of really redundant storage (2 drives data, one parity, one hotspare) it also double as a media server
Advice for Google owning your stuff.
It its true that the basic free usage of Google Apps "terms of service" state that they do own anything you store. I would recommend that you don't store your "bread and butter", we are all musicians, so don't store your original work there, But I'm not worried about a picture of my dog, if they make money off it good for them, because I never will. I also believe it is possible to pay for Google Apps in which you would have a different terms of service
Sorry for the rant, might be because I just had this debate with a friend.
For a long time I tried to keep all my info offline, but it really is pointless, and what most people actually share is more damaging then their personal info like the pics of you taking bong hits at a frat party 15 years ago.
As for not getting a hard copy of software, get over that one too. Anyone that doesn't have backups of there digital files is asking for a catastrophe. At this point in time everyone should have some sort of backup, whether it be a single drive with a one touch backup or a home NAS system or just a bunch of CDs (really, they cost like $0.25 and every computer made in the last 10 years has a burner). With the amount and size of digital files everyone has these days and the fact that you'll just keep getting more I recommend a home NAS that supports RIAD 5/6 like this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822122062 with 4 2TB drives you get 4TB of really redundant storage (2 drives data, one parity, one hotspare) it also double as a media server
Advice for Google owning your stuff.
It its true that the basic free usage of Google Apps "terms of service" state that they do own anything you store. I would recommend that you don't store your "bread and butter", we are all musicians, so don't store your original work there, But I'm not worried about a picture of my dog, if they make money off it good for them, because I never will. I also believe it is possible to pay for Google Apps in which you would have a different terms of service
Sorry for the rant, might be because I just had this debate with a friend.
kendog said:
I agree with you on pretty much everything here. I'm not really that paranoid about storing stuff on a cloud. I just don't like the idea that if there's a server error or a company goes bankrupt or anything like that, that my files aren't here at my house. At least if i do something and lose all my files it's MY fault and I can be the one to do something about it.
I hear ya with the "if I F it it up its my fault", but with all the stuff I have now (120GB of mp3s, all my photos, software etc ...) I'm worried about losing it all. I also just started collecting 1080p movies and they can be huge. My NAS to single drive backup just isn't going to cut it much longer. Here is a cheap solution I've been contemplating http://www.bitbunker.com, it's a new company, they do not share your data and 1TB of storage will cost you $1.00/month. Thinking of backing my NAS to the cloud.
S
swarfrat
Guest
Wonder how much the RIAA payoff would have to be for Google to let them sniff around in your mp3 collection.
B3Guy
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,262
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I was talking of course of storing stuff exclusively on the cloud (which is its "intended" use, at least according to how it is advertised). Using the cloud for backup is an excellent use of the technology. The "run and store everything on the cloud" mentality, however, really is asking for trouble (just like "run and store everything on one hard drive" is also a bad idea. backup is your friend. your backup's backup is your friend. your backup's backup's backup is that weird guy who hangs with you and your friends at the party, making you all look a bit over the top.)
Our internet infrastructure isn't decent enough for everyone to be "remote desktop cloud surfing" on their iSlate, with all their apps and files on some server halfway across the country.
Oh, and here's the ever-brilliant Microsoft using the cloud in their ad campaigns as a "magic solve-all", swiss army knife of all things computer-related (which of course it is not.) It just cracks me up every time I watch this, thinking "photoshopping is in no way related to 'the cloud', LOL"
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjtqoQE_ezA[/youtube]
Our internet infrastructure isn't decent enough for everyone to be "remote desktop cloud surfing" on their iSlate, with all their apps and files on some server halfway across the country.
Oh, and here's the ever-brilliant Microsoft using the cloud in their ad campaigns as a "magic solve-all", swiss army knife of all things computer-related (which of course it is not.) It just cracks me up every time I watch this, thinking "photoshopping is in no way related to 'the cloud', LOL"
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjtqoQE_ezA[/youtube]
B3Guy said:
While the infrastructure isn't there for the level of cloud computing that people want it to be, it will never be there if people aren't pushing the technology. Necessity is the mother of invention. The more people jump on the Cloud computing bandwagon, the more market there will be for development of technology that advances its use. That being said, I do think that until a much faster internet connection than my basic cable package (the only high-speed connection I know of that's available in the Portland area) is readily available and affordable to everybody who has a computer, cloud computing on the level that people are envisioning will probably have to wait a while.
Similar threads
